{
  "id": 8555704,
  "name": "EQUITABLE LEASING CORPORATION v. KINGSMEN PRODUCTIONS, INC., and ELDRIDGE L. FOX",
  "name_abbreviation": "Equitable Leasing Corp. v. Kingsmen Productions, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1975-12-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 7528DC627",
  "first_page": "661",
  "last_page": "663",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 661"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "218 S.E. 2d 207",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550493
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 297",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560580
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0390-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 S.E. 2d 492",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550000
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 S.E. 2d 612",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 721",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556339
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/25/0721-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 397",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550677
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/26/0195-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 320,
    "char_count": 5171,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.563,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2060174164594152
    },
    "sha256": "20eec8d94a271e0bdc2b0db825844c35da2793c69c8a2a1ad85fbe3aaa9e85a9",
    "simhash": "1:aaf87ab52634a4c2",
    "word_count": 825
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EQUITABLE LEASING CORPORATION v. KINGSMEN PRODUCTIONS, INC., and ELDRIDGE L. FOX"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThis appeal is subject to dismissal, because the judgment from which the appeal is taken purportedly \u201cadjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties\u201d and the trial court did not find there was \u201cno just reason for delay.\u201d G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b) ; Rorie v. Blackwelder, 26 N.C. App. 195, 215 S.E. 2d 397 (1975) ; Durham v. Creech, 25 N.C. App. 721, 214 S.E. 2d 612 (1975) ; Arnold v. Howard, 24 N.C. App. 255, 210 S.E. 2d 492 (1974).\nUnder the circumstances here presented, summary judgment for plaintiff is not a final judgment, and it may be revised by the trial court at any time before the entry of a final judgment adjudicating defendant\u2019s counterclaim. Durham v. Creech, supra; Rule 54(b).\nWith respect to the propriety of a directed verdict or summary judgment for the party having the burden of proof where the credibility of such party\u2019s witnesses is at issue, see Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390, 180 S.E. 2d 297 (1971), and Shearin v. Indemnity Co., 27 N.C. App. 88, 218 S.E. 2d 207 (1975).\nFor the reasons stated, this appeal is dismissed and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.\nAppeal dismissed.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael Edward Vaughn for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Gudger & McLean by William A. Parker for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EQUITABLE LEASING CORPORATION v. KINGSMEN PRODUCTIONS, INC., and ELDRIDGE L. FOX\nNo. 7528DC627\n(Filed 3 December 1975)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6; Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 54\u2014 no adjudication of all claims \u2014 premature appeal\nPurported appeal from a judgment allowing plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment on its claim and denying plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment on defendant\u2019s counterclaim is dismissed as premature since the judgment appealed from adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, and the trial court made no finding that there was no just reason for' delay. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b).\nAppeal by defendants from Weaver, Judge. Judgment entered 27 March 1975 in District Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 November 1975.\nThis is a civil action wherein the plaintiff, Equitable Leasing Corporation, seeks to recover from the defendants, Kings-men Productions, Inc., and Eldridge L. Fox, $2,387.30 and attorney fees in the amount of $358.00 allegedly due on a contract whereby plaintiff leased to defendants a 1972 Cadillac automobile at a monthly rental of $246.43. In what appears to be an unverified complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendants \u201cdefaulted\u201d in the monthly payments on 11 April 1974 and plaintiff took possession of the automobile, which it sold for $4,000.00, leaving a balance due on the contract of $2,387.30.\nThe defendants filed what appears in the record to be an unverified answer admitting execution of the contract but denying all the other material allegations of the complaint. In addition, the defendants filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff alleging that in this action the plaintiff wrongfully attached certain personal property of the defendants, and\n\u201c[t]hat the attachment action by the plaintiff was brought without probable cause and with malice; that property of the defendant was seized as a result of the plaintiff\u2019s action and the defendant suffered damages.\u201d\nOn their alleged counterclaim the defendants sought to recover $2,500.00 for loss of business and injury to reputation; $5,000.00 for mental suffering; $1,500.00 for expenses to defend the action ; $15,000.00 punitive damages; and such further relief as the court might deem proper.\nPlaintiff, on 28 February 1975, moved \u201cfor entry of Summary Judgment in his favor on the claim for relief stated in his Complaint against the defendant, and for Summary Judgment against the Counterclaim of the defendants.\u201d In support of its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff filed an affidavit of an officer of the corporation, certain exhibits, and the deposition of the defendant, Eldridge Fox.\nIn opposition to plaintiff\u2019s motion, defendants filed a paper writing styled \u201caffidavit and answ\u00e9r to plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment\u201d which according to this record was signed\n\u201cGudger and McLean s/ William A. Parker Attorneys for Defendant\u201d\nLikewise, defendants filed an affidavit of Juanita Fox and a paper writing styled \u201caffidavit of Carolyn; Geraldine Robinson,\u201d which, according to the record, was unsigned.\nOn 27 March 1975, the court made findings of fact from \u201cthe verified Complaint of the plaintiff, the verified Answer \u00bfnd Counterclaim of the defendants, Affidavits of Dowell Ricker, Juanita J. Fox, and Carolyn Geraldine Robinson, and the Deposition of Eldridge Fox,\u201d and concluded, among other things:\n\u201c3. That there are no material'issues of fact remaining to be decided in reference to the plaintiff\u2019s claim.\n4. That there remains question of fact to be determined at trial in reference to the defendants\u2019 counterclaims.\u201d\nand entered summary judgment for plaintiff on its claim of $2,387.30 and attorney fees, and denied plaintiff\u2019s motions for summary judgment as to defendants\u2019 counterclaim.\nDefendant appealed.\nMichael Edward Vaughn for plaintiff appellee.\nGudger & McLean by William A. Parker for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0661-01",
  "first_page_order": 689,
  "last_page_order": 691
}